Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that draft output is available only after the run is complete, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention whether the call is read-only, what happens for in-progress runs, error behavior, or any authorization needs. The single condition provided is helpful but limited.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and appends a relevant condition. It contains no filler and every phrase adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get-operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main action and a key behavioral nuance. However, it lacks details about the response structure (what fields the run includes beyond the 'draft output'), error scenarios (e.g., run not found), or the state of the run if not yet complete. This leaves some gaps for an agent calling it without prior domain knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter (runId as a UUID with a clear description), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the operation ('Get one managed-agent run') with a specific resource and includes a scoping condition ('including its draft output only after the run is complete'). This differentiates it from devtune_list_agent_runs, which lists runs, and from devtune_run_agent, which starts them. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when a single run is needed and draft output is required only post-completion, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like devtune_list_agent_runs or how to obtain the runId. No explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' guidance is provided, leaving selection somewhat to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.